FL - Doug Benefield, 58, shot and killed by estranged wife, Manatee County, 27 Sept 2020

[Izzylizzy]

look up the definition of stalking under florida law and let me know what you think. It is more than I want to tackle today after being subjected to this latest witness testimony. Lots to read under that topic.

Too long to fully read but quickly found this.
It was admitted into court.
Was there one of the court orders to stay away from each other when he tracked her vehicle ?
??

(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

 

[Wishbone]

Too long to fully read but quickly found this.
It was admitted into court.
Was there one of the court orders to stay away from each other when he tracked her vehicle ?
??

(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

But to fall under domestic violence the two people have to live together. Read the statue I posted about that. Which they had not for a long time. Now the court isn't even talking about domestic violence and instead battered woman defense. I'm not sure where this is going. I'm not an atty and don't want to be, lol.

 

[Izzylizzy]

They don't even live together in the same house so how can domestic violence even apply?

I guess from when they did live together?

 

[Wishbone]

Too long to fully read but quickly found this.
It was admitted into court.
Was there one of the court orders to stay away from each other when he tracked her vehicle ?
??

(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

If he meets the criteria for stalking under this stalking statue then he could be guilty of stalking but not under the domestic violence statue since they didn't live together. Two separate statues. JMOO

 

[Izzylizzy]

But to fall under domestic violence the two people have to live together. Read the statue I posted about that. Which they had not for a long time. Now the court isn't even talking about domestic violence and instead battered woman defense. I'm not sure where this is going. I'm not an atty and don't want to be, lol.

Can't it just be applied under a "stalking law" having nothing to do with Domestic violence laws?
Ferris said he didn't diagnose her as being "battered" but as a victim of domestic abuse.

This is the worst trial I have seen since signing up here.
That goes for both state and defense.

 

[Wishbone]

I guess from when they did live together?

It's sounding like they aren't going for domestic violence. Doesn't mean that won't change though.JMOO

 

[Izzylizzy]

If he meets the criteria for stalking under this stalking statue then he could be guilty of stalking but not under the domestic violence statue since they didn't live together. Two separate statues. JMOO

Is there a consensus on the judge?
From what I remember being discussed here the judge didn't let a lot of evidence in that could have helped the state?

 

[Izzylizzy]

AB just could have left the house after the first shoulder bump..or the second..or the box into waist.

imo
A lot from the trial about AB sounds like she enjoyed antagonizing him.

 

[Wishbone]

Is there a consensus on the judge?
From what I remember being discussed here the judge didn't let a lot of evidence in that could have helped the state?

Those evidence issues would have been argued in hearings and possibly much of it would have been too incriminating to the defendant. Just a guess. All her false claims(lies)of being poisoned and allegations of child abuse and such. JMOO

 

[Wishbone]

I missed the ex-wife abuse.
I did hear that AB had read some texts.
Did she snoop like in DB's saved texts and find them?
I'm so confused.

We're all confused. We can only hope somebody tells the entire story after the trial if over. JMOO

 

[Wishbone]

I guess we have to suffer through that man again on Monday. JMOO

 

[nodamselindistress]

Reading these comments, I am glad I switched over to watching the Olympics. Nice break in the action over the weekend and then back to it on Monday!

Not sure how I am going to be able to listen to Ferris though.

 

[Izzylizzy]

dbm because

I found the photos in Vinnie Politian video

Ashley Benefield Testifies at 2018 Hearing

Ashley Benefield testified at an injunction hearing where she accused her husband, Doug, of being angry and violent.

www.courttv.com

 

[Izzylizzy]

Ck. out "The Lawyer You know".
"Defendant Takes The Stand"

Peter is going through AB"s testimony and will be doing a live video on the trial tomorrow.

Going to watch it now but posted because I found his other video on her very good.

 

[Wishbone]

Ck. out "The Lawyer You know".
"Defendant Takes The Stand"

Peter is going through AB"s testimony and will be doing a live video on the trial tomorrow.

Going to watch it now but posted because I found his other video on her very good.

I like him too but he talks really fast

 

[Izzylizzy]

When they first met at a fundraiser held at Ben Carson's home both AB & DB were Evangelical Chrisitans and had the same political beliefs and were big 2nd Amendment supporters.
She volunteered on a campaign for a presidential nominee and was the reach-out person for Evangelicals.
Text messages included Biblical quotes and Biblical references.

I find it interesting when AB was asked about first meeting DB when she described him and what attracted her to him she never mentions any of the above.

Was this info not allowed in by the judge?
Did her lawyer not want jurors to know this about her ?

 

[Izzylizzy]

I like him too but he talks really fast

Yes!
I have him on in the background (TV) and became real conscious now of his speedy speech.
Thanks! lol

 

[Weki]

They probably didn’t want to bring politics into it. It could bias a jury. They don’t get to ask jurors about their political affiliation I don’t think……so they have no idea what jurors think of certain political figures. So better to play it safe and not mention any names. Especially with such divisive figures.

Her description of the relationship, her actions, her description of what he did to prompt her to shoot him…..none of it is adding up to fear of imminent death. That’s why defense is desperate to introduce battered wife syndrome and why they’ve been playing gotcha games.

I think state has done a good job of not overdoing the presentation of the case. They don’t have a sympathetic victim. They have to be careful. It’s a straightforward case and they are smart to keep it simple. If they tried to paint her too negatively and excuse the victim’s bad behavior etc it would not do them any favors. I’m impressed by their restraint.

JMO

 

[Izzylizzy]

I like him too but he talks really fast

Try slowing the speed on the YouTube video.
It's in settings.

 

[Izzylizzy]

They probably didn’t want to bring politics into it. It could bias a jury. They don’t get to ask jurors about their political affiliation I don’t think……so they have no idea what jurors think of certain political figures. So better to play it safe and not mention any names. Especially with such divisive figures.

Her description of the relationship, her actions, her description of what he did to prompt her to shoot him…..none of it is adding up to fear of imminent death. That’s why defense is desperate to introduce battered wife syndrome and why they’ve been playing gotcha games.

I think state has done a good job of not overdoing the presentation of the case. They don’t have a sympathetic victim. They have to be careful. It’s a straightforward case and they are smart to keep it simple. If they tried to paint her too negatively and excuse the victim’s bad behavior etc it would not do them any favors. I’m impressed by their restraint.

JMO

Thanks.
You make credible points.